/lit/ - Literature

please delete this post, write it as a normal paragraph and come back

>>10273478
sorry, i'll do that. thanks for letting me know!

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>10273478
>shitting on a greentext for being a greentext
>in 4chan

Next level faggotery

>>10273505
It's a shit greentext. If you can't greentext just write normally.
*faggotry

>>10273475
Jesus
You are actually in high school, aren't you?

You seem to be obsessed with insisting on a "god". I'd recommend going right back to Dawkins. Or if you can't be without the idea of a godhead try Alan Watts

>>10273507
I prefer faggotery. Sounds much more distinguished.

>>10273475
>look at all these books I read and how they changed my opinions on stupid shit.
Can God make a rock so big he couldn't lift it? Of course he fucking can, he's god and he's making a rock. The fabric of reality has finite limitations while he exists entirely separate from existence in plane of creation with less physical/tangible limitations.

what is it with frog"men" and atheism?

>>10273533
>God is omnipotent, therefore he can undermine his own omnipotence, and so not be omnipotent

>>10273501
Don't do it. Ignore that faggot.

>>10273544
Can you create a videogame with a rock so big your character could not lift it? Probably. Does that make you any less omnipotent? Nope, difference of scale of accomplishment.

>>10273551
Poor analogy. Game devs aren't omnipotent, neither are their in-game avatars.

The question is whether God himself (not some physical avatar, like Jesus) could create a rock so big he could not lift it. That's why it's a paradox. It's a contradiction of situational possibilities.

>>10273544
you realize that the omnipotence """"""paradox"""""" has been solved since like the 60s? There is common knowledge mathematical proof for this shit, feel free to look it up.

>>10273551
False analogy. You are only "omnipotent" within the predetermined limitations of the game's physics, i.e. you must conform to the facsimile laws of nature, which is precisely the limitation you say God is not subject to.

>>10273558
It's a good analogy to prove exactly what my point is.

A game dev can create something that undermines his own system that he created. There's a duality in the existence of infinite possibilities with every outcome, and the nature of the problem is based on the moment and the container for the issue.

Let's go the whole nine yards and talk about capital G God relative to what he's creating. Intrinsically, God exists a level above creation and has omnipotence relative to this reality. Through string theory, every possibility that every reality exists simultaneously, so lifting the rock and creating the rock too big to lift are confined to two separate but simultaneous existences, which makes both true and neither false. The problem we have is the scale of our observable universe and the subjective limitations of our human consciousness.

>>10273564
> You are only "omnipotent" within the predetermined limitations of the game's physics, i.e. you must conform to the facsimile laws of nature, which is precisely the limitation you say God is not subject to.
No, what I'm saying is that the Game Developer created their own physics engine, which means that in a different physics engine of their own creation, they arent subject to the same limits, which makes both situations simultaneously true.

>>10273475
Sounds like you’re easily led - a cult’s dream. Be careful who you read, you might end up becoming someone you don’t like but without the moral or intellectual fortitude to change yourself back.

>>10273581
Seems to me you're saying that in another universe, with different laws of logic, God may be able to "lift" such a stone, but we could not conceive of this, because such a universe would be subject to different rules. But the question must obviously apply to our universe, because the logical framework in which it exists is that which applies to our universe, so this reconstruction of the analogy dodges the question in its entirety.

>>10273560
You think I don't know this? It was, in fact, solved much earlier (1920s). But he's the one who brought it up.

>>10273600
>It was, in fact, solved much earlier (1920s).
*ahem*

>>10273600
>But the question must obviously apply to our universe, because the logical framework in which it exists is that which applies to our universe, so this reconstruction of the analogy dodges the question in its entirety.
It doesn't dodge the question, you're limiting the nature of omnipotence to fit your definition of lacking. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything, which means the alternate universe can be identical to ours, or even our universe itself, but with a momentary blip for two actions: the creation and failure to lift, followed by lifting of the rock that cannot be lifted. What this refers to is alterations of the subjective container through OMNIPOTENCE.

It the words of /tg/ it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit.

>>10273619
>Omnipotence means the ability to give positive content to a logically null proposition
>fuck you it's magic

ok

>>10273638
You'd have a point, if the definition of omnipotence wasn't the ability to do literally anything.

Science is magic by another name, and though we may not know the machinations, results are often undisputed.

>>10273619
the omnipotence "paradox" is less of a serious problem for theists and more of a bad pun

omnipotence means you can do anything, logical contradictions, like a stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift arent "something," they're a bizarre artifact of language and nothing else

it's like asking if god could "djeidiidjerj" - you might as well have saved some oxygen instead

>>10273646
You can't perform a non-action (logical contradiction). For an ability (capacity) to be relevant, it has to relate to an act, which a contradiction is and cannot be. In other words, even by your definition, omnipotence (as "the ability to do literally anything") is inapplicable to logical contradictions, because "nothing" is not a thing, and this places it outside the realm of any conception of capability.

>>10273669
Stop arguing with the atheistic brainlets, it just shits up the board

can god create another god?

>>10273669
But in definition, doesn't the thingly "thingness" of thingly things define "anything" as any "thing"? Describing a thing is to give it thingness, which means "a rock so heavy it cannot be lifted" can be lifted and created by virtue of description, or thought. "Nothing" is also thing, it's the absence of thing, or a word to describe the thingly-ness of a thing that has a lack of thing-ness which makes it a dualistic thing. That which is both a thing and not a thing is neither a thing, while also being a thing, so to create it and give it thingness is to deny the very thingness that makes it a thing, and in doing so is simultaneously a thing that is no"thing", thus part of any"thing".

>>10273697
everything follows from a contradiction buddy

>>10273697
Oh fuck me, it wasn't an atheist, just a bored guy who actually reads books.

Fuck you buddy and fuck your nonsensical jibber jabber about things... and stuff.

If god exists, anything goes.

>>10273697
1) cringe
2) suppose for the sake of argument that god can do contradictory things (whatever the hell that means), then yeah he can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. Then he can turn around and LIFT THAT ROCK

in either case, the paradox is moot

>>10273697
"A rock so heavy it cannot be lifted" is not "A rock so heavy God cannot lift it." You have separated the original subject from its predicate, and replaced it with the passive sense, and are now leaning on an amphiboly. Such a trick might work on the uninitiated, but it won't fly here.

At every point where you read a new author and made different discoveries, Stirner was relevant. Seriously read the man I can't think of a more applicable philosopher that will unfuck your shit up.

>>10273697
>ctrl + f "thing"
>40 matches
>13 of them are outside of this post
We have reached a level of "thingness" I didn't think possible.

>can god create a rock he can't lift
Of course not, god can do anything, he could lift any rock. Next question please

>>10273732
This. He provides the tools to dig oneself out of any psycho-pathological tomb

What dipshit believes in God out of fear?

>>10273588
Maybe he should read Camus.

>>10273732
>>10273753
how do you pronounce Stirner? I always read the english way but now that I think of it, isn't it german pronunciation?

>>10273768
I did, thought of adding him on the chart. goddamn

>>10273475
>being impressionable
lol what a fag

>>10273781
Eh, just say it the English way unless you're fluent in German. Otherwise you'll end up sounding pretentious.

>>10273544
He was a man for a while.

>>10273680
I seem to be seeing more and more of this "brainlet" guy on lit today. He sure is mad at atheists.

>>10273790
I'm guessing you figured life out at a young age of 14?

>>10273544
It's a paradox. Theists can think themselves silly about it but it's essentially a meaningless question.

>>10273820
Being wrong <>lying

>>10273797
Which guy?

>>10273560
>>10273600
>>10273617
>It was, in fact, solved much earlier
Yeah, like 60 anno mundi

>>10273551
This is a textbook false analogy.
Firstly an omnipotent being is hardly comparable in any sense to a content creator. It's like eternity - there's nothing you can compare eternity to.

>Can God make a rock so big he couldn't lift it?
This is the interplay between god and a rock

>Can you create a videogame with a rock so big your character could not lift it?
This is the interplay between god, a human and a rock

>>10273846
>>10273680

>>10273811
More like 17. Either way by the time high school comes around you should have enough discernment so as not to get swayed by bullshit. OP is a loser basically and his parents never taught him about the value of discernment and understanding.

>>10273928
>you should have enough discernment so as not to get swayed by bullshit

open mindedness/being open to changing your mind on things is having true discernment

>>10273958
Not when you're always picking up the next thing that comes along like OP.

>>10274204
what? I read other things too, they just didn't effect my life as much as this

>>10273958
How is it discernment to decide that something is good and then decide it is bad? If you actually had discernment you would see that it was bad from the beginning.